The English Defined

For the confused.

From James B. Minahan, One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups. (Greenwood Press, Westport, CT. 2000. pp. 226-233.)

ENGLISH

POPULATION: Approximately (2000 e) 47,640,000 English in Europe, the majority in England, but with large populations in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Ireland. Other large English populations live in Canada, the United States, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa.

THE ENGLISH HOMELAND: The English homeland lies in the south and southwestern parts of the island of Great Britain. England has some highland areas, including the Cumbrian Mountains, also called the Lake District, including the highest point in the country, Scafell Pike, 3,210 feet (978 m.), and the Pennine range in the north, but the remainder of the country is mostly fertile lowlands. The northern and western portions are generally mountainous. The coast is heavily indented, especially in the west, which has a milder climate than the rest of Northern Europe due to the Gulf Stream and ample rainfall. Most of the indentations are excellent natural harbors, easily accessible to deep-water shipping, a factor that has been decisive in the economic development and imperial expansion of the English. The major rivers are the Severn and the Thames. Moors and heathlands occur in many upland areas, in all covering about one-quarter of England.

The original vegetation in much of the English homeland was deciduous forest, with oaks as the predominant tree. But centuries ago human activity greatly reduced the forests and modified the landscape, leaving only small patches of the original woodlands. Most of the English countryside is farmed or used to pasture livestock.

The Kingdom of England forms a political unit of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is separated from continental Europe by the English Channel, the Strait of Dover, and the North Sea. The English homeland forms the largest part of the territory of the island of Great Britain, and shares the island with the territories of the Northumbrians and Scots in the north and the Welsh and Cornish in the west.

Kingdom of England: 50,333 sq.mi.-130,362 sq.km. (2000 e) 46,148,000—English 94% (including Northumbrians and Cornish), Pakistanis 2%, Indians 1%, West Indians 1%. The English capital and major cultural center is London, (2000 e) 6,214,000 (metropolitan area 12,843,000), the capital of England and of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

FLAG: The English national flag, the official flag of the kingdom, is a white field bearing a centered red cross, the Cross of St. George, the patron saint of England.

PEOPLE: The English are a Germanic people, the dominant nation of the British Isles and one of the major nations of Europe. The great majority of the English are descended from early Celtic and Iberian peoples and the later invaders of the islands, including the Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans. The descendants of a mixture of different European nations, the English culture and language have been influenced by the many invaders of the island, and each of the invaders from continental Europe left its mark on the culture and the language of the island. The population density of the English homeland is one of the highest in the world and is highly urbanized, with an estimated 77% living in urban areas in 2000. Among the prime traditions of the English are a fierce pride in their traditional freedoms, a unity against adversity, and an ability to bring opposing factions together in compromise. Pride in being English is another strong trait, even though the English show considerable diversity in traditions, habits, manners, and speech.

The English homeland, established as an independent monarchy many centuries ago, in time achieved political control over the rest of the island, all the British Isles, and vast sections of the world, becoming the nucleus of one of the greatest empires in history, which lasted until the mid-twentieth century. Called the British Empire, the reality was almost exclusive control by the most powerful people of the British Isles, the English, with auxiliary roles played by the Scots, Irish, and Welsh.

The English language, carried to the far corners of the earth by English adventurers and colonists, is now the most important of the world's languages and is spoken as a first language by some 350 million people and as a second language by another 150 million. The language belongs to the Anglo-Frisian branch of the Low German languages of the West Germanic group. Spoken in over a dozen regional dialects and many more subdialects in England, the language is also spoken by a majority of the population of the British Islands. Standard English, as spoken in the United Kingdom, is based on the London dialect, which became predominant in the fourteenth century. It has been estimated that the present English vocabulary consists of more than 1 million words, including slang and dialect expressions and technical and scientific terms, many of which came into use after the middle of the twentieth century. The English vocabulary is the most extensive in the world, although some languages, such as the Chinese dialects, have a word-building capacity equal to that of English. Extensive, constant borrowing from every major language, particularly Latin, Greek, French, and the Scandinavian languages, accounts for the great number of words in the English vocabulary.

The Church of England, a Protestant Episcopal denomination, is the state church and the nominal church of nearly three-fifths of the population. The denomination next in importance is the Roman Catholic Church, which has about 6 million members in England. Among the numerous Protestant denominations are the Methodist, Baptist, Unitarian, Congregationalist, and Society of Friends.

NATION: The New Stone Age, during which the practice of agriculture was begun, was marked by the arrival of the Iberians, or Long Skulls, who came from the European mainland about 3000 B.C. The island was the site of an ancient Neolithic society called the Beaker folk, established by 2500 B.C., which left its mark in the form of mound-tombs and henge monuments, particularly the famous monument at Stonehenge. These monuments attest to their social and economic organization as well as their technical and intellectual abilities.

The first lasting influence on English culture was the Brythonic-speaking Celts, who crossed from continental Europe in several migrations in the first century B.C. The Celts spread across the island, living in autonomous communities. With their iron weapons and two-wheeled chariots, the Celts dominated and absorbed the indigenous populations. Their religious elite, the Druids, came to dominate Celtic society.

The Romans under Julius Caesar attempted to invade the island in 55 and 54 B.C. but were repulsed by the fierce Celtic warriors. Roman rule was not imposed on the Celts of Britannia until the attack by the legions of Emperor Claudius in A.D. 43. The last of the Celtic kingdoms was subdued following the uprising led by Boudicca, queen of the Iceni, in A.D. 60.

The Romans built a system of roads that for the first time pulled the island's various communities together. Britannia developed as an important mining and military province. Roman culture was adopted by the urban Celts, who used the Latin language, and later some accepted the Christian religion. Magnificent cities and Romanized towns, connected by the Roman road system and protected by Roman soldiers, rivaled any in the Roman Empire. In the north the Romans eventually, in A.D. 123, built the defensive wall called Hadrian's Wall to protect the rich province from its northern neighbors, the Picts.

By the early fifth century, Roman Britannia was in considerable turmoil. Hadrian's Wall had been abandoned, and the Roman legions were being withdrawn to meet barbarian threats elsewhere in the empire. In 410 in an appeal to Rome for military aid, the Britons were refused, and Roman officials were subsequently evacuated. Without the defenses of the Roman legions, Irish and Picts attacked from the north and west, and Anglo-Saxons from the east and south.

After nearly four centuries of occupation the Romans left little that was permanent: a superb network of roads, the best England would have for 1,400 years; a number of urban centers; and Christianity.

The Anglo-Saxons and Jutes, raiding from continental Europe, invaded and colonized the area as Roman civil government collapsed, traditionally establishing their presence in England in 449. Thousands of refugees fled the Germanic onslaught, falling back on the western peninsulas, Wales and Cornwall, and crossing to Brittany in Gaul. Those Britons who remained quickly went back to their pre-Roman lifestyle. Roman towns were no longer habitable, so they moved back to the Celtic hill forts and refortified them. Christianity became a binding force, the last link to a more civilized world.

Of all the migrating Germanic peoples, those who imposed their identity most indelibly on the lands they conquered were the Anglo-Saxons. Unlike other migrating peoples who absorbed earlier populations, the Anglo-Saxons mostly displaced the native Celtic population and changed the ethnic map of the British Isles forever. Although some scholars claim that the modern English are as much Celtic as Teutonic in ancestry, English place-names and the English language show almost a complete lack of Celtic influence. The Celts driven westward were given a contemptuous name by the Anglo-Saxons—“Welsh, ” meaning simply “foreigners.” The loose alliance of Germanic tribes, called by the Romans the Anglii, Saxones, Frisii, and Jutae, collectively used the name “Englisc, ” a term that has survived almost unmodified. The term “Anglo-Saxon” was invented by the invading Normans as the name of the people they conquered.

The loose alliances of the invading Germanic tribes gradually coalesced into a number of small kingdoms, the so-called Heptarchy. Missionary efforts to Christianize the kingdoms resumed in the sixth century. Warlords, nominally Christian, ruled small, unstable kingdoms and continued some Roman traditions of government. Gradually, the kingdom of Wessex gained dominance among the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.

Late in the eighth century, Vikings, called Danes in English history, began raiding the coastal regions, their raids growing in violence and severity. Anglo-Saxon unity was first successfully encouraged by Wessex king Alfred the Great, who finally defeated the Danes in 878. Alfred's victory effectively confined the Viking invaders to a region in the east called the Danelaw, where the Viking leaders distributed land to soldiers for settlement. Alfred's successors finally conquered the Danelaw and united England, but new Danish invasions in the late tenth century resulted in a defeat for the English, and by 1016 the Dane Canute ruled all of England as part of his Danish kingdom. Canute's Scandinavian dynasty died out in 1042, and the Wessex line, under Edward the Confessor, regained the English throne.

The disputed succession after the death of King Edward resulted in a new invasion from continental Europe, which led to the defeat of the Saxon English in 1066. The Normans, descendants of Vikings who had settled on the northern French coast, established a centralized, feudal state. The Norman domination of England mixed elements of the Saxon and Celtic past with the Norman and French and created a new culture. The Norman conquest of England ended the Anglo-Saxon period, which had emphasized the rights of free farmers. Military feudalism, brought from Normandy, was extended to all parts of the conquered kingdom. Norman French became the state language and remained so until the fifteenth century. Latin was used as the scholarly literary language.

Under Norman rule the farmers were reduced to near serfdom and were dominated by a hierarchy of Norman nobility. The Norman nobles came to hold autonomous power over estates granted by the Norman king. The freemen of the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had been responsible to their kings and were superior to the serfs; however, under Norman rule, the majority of the freemen were forced into serfdom or to dependence on the aristocracy.

The English kingdom acquired territory in France and in the late twelfth century conquered Ireland. However, the Norman homeland, Normandy, was lost to English rule in 1204. The rapid growth of towns was aided by charters sold them by the king, who needed money for conquests and religious crusades. An increasing conflict between the king and the nobles led to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 by King John. Later in the thirteenth century a parliamentary system was established, and the centralized royal courts and legal system were reformed.

The decline of feudalism, starting in the later fourteenth century, led to the rise of cities and the development of an English middle class. A national secular culture began to emerge, and the English language, a mixture of Anglo-Saxon and Norman-French elements, was adopted by the educated classes. The English, however, had distinct limitations due to the size of their island homeland and the limited type and amount of natural resources available. To fill their needs they developed into a nation of traders and seamen.

The Hundred Years' War between England and France, fought from 1337 to 1453, resulted in the loss of most of England's continental territories but reinforced the English national consciousness. English, after centuries of struggle for survival, reemerged as the court language in 1413. The Black Death, which first struck in English territory in 1348, finally brought an end to feudalism and serfdom even while the growth of the English towns gave rise to new commercial and artisan classes. The dynastic wars between the Houses of Lancaster and York, which plunged England into turmoil and political anarchy, were finally ended with the accession of Henry VII of the Tudor family in 1485.

The reign of the Tudors was one of the most glorious in English history. Henry VII restored political order in the kingdom and fostered the financial solvency of the crown. Henry VIII inherited a more powerful kingdom, a strong centralized government, and a full exchequer. One measure of Tudor power was the introduction by Henry VIII of the Protestant Reformation and establishment of the Church of England in 1534 with the English monarch as head of the church. As part of the Reformation in England, the orders of monks and friars were suppressed, and their properties were secularized.

England, under the rule of Elizabeth Tudor, Elizabeth I, entered a period of great maritime and colonial expansion in the late sixteenth century. The Elizabethan era, the English Renaissance, flowered under her rule, particularly in literature. Under Elizabeth's rule England changed from indebted state divided by religious strife to become one of Europe's great nations, its power sustained by a powerful navy. Elizabeth died childless after forty-five years on the English throne.

A long conflict with Spain, partly commercial rivalry and partly religious, culminated in the Battle of the Spanish Armada in 1588, although the war continued for another fifteen years. The defeat of the Spanish Armada led to commercial advantages. Supremacy at sea not only gained the English an empire but put the insular nation in touch with peoples the world over. New ideas and inventions returned to the island with English travelers and seamen, leading to rapid changes in the island society. Limited local workforces contributed to the invention of industrial machines and the earliest manifestations of what would later be known as the Industrial Revolution.

The Stuart line came to power in 1603 at Elizabeth's death, effectively uniting the thrones of England and Scotland. The efforts of the early Stuart kings to revive feudal dues were one factor in the religious and constitutional upheaval called the Puritan Revolution. The struggle of parliament to control the monarchy led to civil war in 1642. A parliamentary victory led to the eventual execution of King Charles I in 1648. The overthrow of the Stuart monarchy was followed by the establishment of a commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell from 1649 to the restoration of the Stuart line in 1660. The restoration was a popular reaction against Puritanism. In 1688 parliamentary supremacy was confirmed by the Glorious Revolution.

Religious and political dissidents, unable to gain influence in England, began to emigrate to the new American colonies. There dissidence finally led to the American War of Independence and the loss of the southern American colonies in the late eighteenth century, the greatest loss of territory to the growing British Empire.

The Act of Union in 1707 united Scotland with England and Wales in the Kingdom of Great Britain. The union, ending strife on England's northern border, allowed the English to concentrate on trade, where they outstripped the Dutch, and on their growing colonial empire, which set off a long rivalry with the French. In 1801 legislative union with Ireland was enacted, changing the kingdom to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

English society from the late seventeenth century to the late eighteenth century remained remarkably stable, despite enormous economic and social changes. Wealth and power remained in the hands of the aristocracy, the landed gentry, and the commercial classes in the growing cities and towns. The majority of the English population, agricultural and industrial workers, semi-illiterate and landless, lived under a paternalistic system dominated by the wealthy classes. Parliament, dominated by the aristocrats and gentry, concerned itself primarily with foreign affairs and private legislation on behalf of the ruling classes.

After 1760 the effects of industrialization rapidly changed English society. Social unrest grew among the working classes of the new industrial cities, mostly lying in the north of England. Miserable working conditions and widespread unemployment accompanied the Industrial Revolution. A new industrial middle class began to demand rights and parliamentary representation but did not extend their newly won rights to the working class. Fear of revolutionary unrest spurred the passage of the first of a long series of labor legislation in the 1830s and 1840s. In 1846 the last barriers to free trade were repealed.

Improved and expanded educational opportunities raised the working classes from misery. Political activity by workers organized into trade unions, courted by rival political parties, resulted in the enfranchisement of the working classes in legislation passed in 1867 and 1884. Full parliamentary democracy was achieved peacefully.

In spite of great changes in the social structure of the kingdom, much of the old England remained until World War I. The aristocracy was still the bastion of social and political power, and the working classes, although enfranchised, had received only a small portion of their economic demands. From 1906 to 1914 numerous new bills were passed that expanded the economic and welfare rights of the working classes.

World War I, which pitted Great Britain and its allies against Germany and its allies, decimated a generation of aristocratic officers, which greatly diminished the hold of the aristocracy over England's wealth. At the end of the war new attitudes and more militant trade unions promised a more equal distribution of the national wealth, but the Great Depression, which began in 1929, devastated the industrial areas and made farming unprofitable. Progressive social legislation was slowed by the depression and the hegemony of the Conservative Party. In 1932 the British government abandoned the policy of free trade.

In September 1939 Great Britain declared war on Germany and its allies. Following the fall of France in 1940, England was faced with invasion. The English rallied to face the German onslaught until the German threat was eliminated by German defeat in the air war, the Battle of Britain, in 1940-41. England served as a base for the Allied invasion of Normandy in June 1944, the beginning of the end of the war.

Increased education and the leveling effects of two world wars finally broke the rigid class system and opened opportunities to people of the lower classes. Under the Labour Party, welfare legislation between 1945 and 1951 brought numerous benefits to the English public. Although the Conservative Party gained control of elections in 1951, ending the development of the welfare state, medical care, secondary education, pensions, and employment benefits were already among the services available to all English citizens.

Industrial growth continued in England in the 1960s and 1970s, but England, shorn of its former colonial empire, lost its leadership role to other states, particularly the United States. A so-called special relationship between the United Kingdom, particularly England, and the United States marked a growing coincidence of world outlook and foreign policy among the countries of the English-speaking world. At the same time, the United Kingdom moved closer to continental Europe politically with its accession to the European Community in 1972.

The growth of nationalist movements in the non-English parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland and Wales, began to have an effect on the English in the 1980s. A feeling that the English had carried the burden of the state since its inception, only to be faced with nationalism and separatism on its periphery, triggered a modest reculturation in the late 1980s and early 1990s. English nationalism, long submerged in the British nationality, began to reemerge with demands for recognition of their special position within the United Kingdom.

The decline of heavy industry has greatly exacerbated the problems of the former industrial cities, particularly in the north of England. The southern counties have mostly converted to service industries and are thriving, while the English counties in the northeast and northwest remain the poorest, with higher unemployment and fewer services. The regional disparities have spurred the growth of regionalism and demands for the decentralization of the English government.

Today is Lammas Day

This was one of the four great pagan festivals of Britain, the others being on the 1st November, 1st February, and 1st May. The festival of the Gule of August, as it was called, probably recognised the realisation of the first-fruits of the earth, and more particularly that of the grain-harvest. When Christianity was introduced, the day continued to be observed as a festival on these grounds, and, from a loaf being the usual offering at church, the service, and consequently the day, came to be called Hlaf-mass, subsequently shortened into Lammas, just as half-dig (bread-dispenser), applicable to the mistress of the house, came to be softened into the familiar and extensively used term, lady. This we would call the rational definition of Lammas. There is another, but in our opinion utterly inadmissible derivation, pointing to the custom of bringing a lamb on this day, as an offering to the cathedral church of York. Without doubt, this custom, which was purely local, would take its rise with reference to the term Lammas, after the true original signification of that word had been forgotten.

~ Chambers Book of Days (1864).

In Anglo-Saxon times, the bread consecrated at the service was believed to possess a special potency against evil forces. A charm that has survived from the era advises people to “take from the hallowed bread which is hallowed on Lammas Day, four pieces, and crumble them on the four corners of the barn.”

Later, Lammas was the day upon which the fences that had been erected around ‘Lammas Meadows’ at Candlemas (February 2nd) were taken down to permit common grazing. Lammas Fairs, which grew up around the re-opened hay meadows became a feature of English life for centuries. All kinds of livestock were sold, especially sheep, and every variety of entertainment and games were enjoyed.


Sadly, the observation of Lammas day and the festivities associated with it have declined greatly in the last two centuries. Harvest festivals have tended to be celebrated later in the year in September or October when all the crops are in, and few Lammas Fairs are still held in England.


In Exeter some of the traditions of the Lammas Fair continue unbroken, although moved to early July to allow the participation of local schools and inclusion in the larger Exeter Summer Festival.

****

From Dorothy Gladys Spicer, The Yearbook of English Festivals (H. W. Wilson, 1954):

Lammas Fair, Exeter, Devonshire


The Tuesday before the third Wednesday in July


Lammas Fair, now scarcely more than a formality, always opens at noon of the Tuesday before the third Wednesday in July. The ceremonies which accompany the opening predate the Norman conquest.


Two sergeants-at-mace, starting from the guildhall, proceed down High Street, accompanied by two men playing the fife and drum. The sergeants carry a long pole, from which is suspended a large stuffed white glove, decorated with flowers and ribbons. The sergeants proclaim the fair at the four ancient gates of the city, before returning to the guildhall, where the mayor announces the event. According to the words of the historic Proclamation, ". . . Lammas Fair taketh its beginning from Twelve of the clock of this present day and cloth continue until Friday next Twelve of the clock at noon of the same day (that is to say) two whole days and two half days, making in the whole three days."


The glove, ancient symbol of the Crown's protection of the peace, is hoisted up before the guildhall, where it remains for the fair's duration.


The Lammas Fair proclamation contains many quaint clauses regarding the rights and powers of persons who come to buy or sell. Such persons are guaranteed against ". . . any molestation, arrests, attachments or other troubles whatsoever within the City of Exeter," save for ". . . Treason, Murder, Felony, Routs, Riots . . . or any acts whatsoever against His Majesty's peace, Crown and dignity." Persons are prohibited from selling goods except within the Fair and its precincts, or from placing ". . . any wares open in their shops out of the said Fair within the length and reach of any man's arm upon pain of the forfeiture of all such goods, wares and merchandizes so sold or set to sale or hanging in any house or shop within the reach of any man's arm as aforesaid." Furthermore, a Court of Pie Powder originally was arranged at the guildhall. Both the mayor and the city officials were prohibited from dealing with any misdemeanors which could be handled by this court.


Once Exeter's Lammas Fair ranked as one of the West Country's most important fairs. Today it remains simply a historic link between the Exeter of Saxon and of modern times.

****

The Tuesday before the third Wednesday...? :)

Herzl on the “‘gentile’ question”

In Kevin Macdonald’s latest piece at The Occidental Observer, a review of Eric P. Kaufmann’s “The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America,” he discusses a conspicuous double standard held by one of the most influential Jews of the last century, Israel Zangwill of ‘melting pot’ infamy: he was a proponent of ‘ethnic dissolution’ for non-Jewish peoples while simultaneously promoting the Zionist cause and generally defending the idea of Jewish group survival into the future.

Israel Zangwill, the other Jewish advocate of ethnic dissolution highlighted by Kaufmann, had a strong Jewish identity. Despite marrying a non-Jew and advocating the dissolution of all ethnic groups, Zangwill was a prominent advocate of a Jewish homeland and was active in Jewish politics throughout his life.

[…]
Although Kaufmann represents Zangwill as advocating the melting together of all racial groups, the reality is a bit more subtle. Zangwill’s views on Jewish-gentile intermarriage were ambiguous at best and he detested Christian proselytism to Jews. Zangwill was an ardent Zionist and an admirer of his father’s religious orthodoxy as a model for the preservation of Judaism. He believed Jews were a morally superior race whose moral vision had shaped Christian and Muslim societies and would eventually shape the world, although Christianity remained morally inferior to Judaism. Jews would retain their racial purity if they continued to practice their religion: “So long as Judaism flourishes among Jews there is no need to talk of safeguarding race or nationality; both are automatically preserved by the religion” (Zangwill, quoted in Israel Zangwill, by Joseph Leftowich, 1957, 161).

Kaufmann’s inability to recognise and acknowledge the glaring double standard is itself standard. In an age in which all Western leaders must declare commitment to the Jewish people via their ethnostate at the same time as they must declare willing to blend their own peoples out of existence via race-replacement migration it is not even necessary to question whether Kaufmann’s Jewishness is subconsciously influencing his work; an English or German scholar is just as likely to have avoided the problem.

Remarkably, this double standard was a recognised feature of Zionism from its earliest days and does not appear to have troubled its most influential early activist, Theodor Herzl. From his diary we learn that he considered support for the existence of a specifically Jewish state no moral obstacle to advocacy for the disintegration of all other peoples and their states. From Robert John, Behind the Balfour Declaration (IHR, 1988, p. 29):

In his diary Herzl describes submitting his draft proposals to the Rothschild Family Council, noting: “I bring to the Rothschilds and the big Jews their historical mission. I shall welcome all men of goodwill - we must be united - and crush all those of bad.”[1]

He read his manuscript “Addressed to the Rothschilds” to a friend, Meyer-Cohn, who said,

Up till now I have believed that we are not a nation - but more than a nation. I believed that we have the historic mission of being the exponents of universalism among the nations and therefore were more than a people identified with a specific land.

Herzl replied:

Nothing prevents us from being and remaining the exponents of a united humanity, when we have a country of our own. To fulfill this mission we do not have to remain literally planted among the nations who hate and despite us. If, in our present circumstances, we wanted to bring about the unity of mankind independent of national boundaries, we would have to combat the ideal of patriotism. The latter, however, will prove stronger than we for innumerable years to come.[2]

1. Lowenthal, The Diaries of Theodor Herzl, p.35
2. Ibid., p.63

Even Herzl, who clearly did not suffer any lack of ambition to remake the world, did not dare to dream that the ‘ideal of patriotism’ would so rapidly come to be seen as a psychological malady (and largely as a result of other influential Jews following his path of preaching one rule for them and quite another for us). How amazed he would be, then, to find that Britons of the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries have been ruled by men who coupled ardent Zionism with a passionate rejection of their own people’s right to maintain or restore an ethnic nationalist equivalent.

No longer do our leaders hate and despise Jews (if they ever did), today they hate and despise us, or at least are compelled to act as though they do.

****

Related post: http://songlight-for-dawn.blogspot.com/2009/07/they-need-us-to-be-bad.html

****

I quoted from Robert John’s history of Zionism, ‘Behind the Balfour Declaration.’ At the Scribd link you can find the main body of the text, a speech given by John to an IHR conference. I own a copy of the book put out by the IHR which includes an introduction, a poem, and an afterword in addition to the text of the speech. Since the book is out of print and the main text is already available online I’ll put together a PDF which includes the supplementary material and post download info here.

Throw Nature out with a pitchfork, / And yet She will return.

Even Alexander the Great, labelled ‘the first globalist’ by one biographer, did not deny the deep-rooted attachments of ethnicity. In the confusion of loyalties of Alexander’s Greece this had tragic implications for the athlete, Dioxippos.

Diodorus Siculus 17.100-101
Circa. 30 B.C.

Alexander the Great held a huge banquet for his friends [325 B. C.]. During the drinking something occurred which is worth mention. Among the companions of the king was a Macedonian named Koragos who was very strong in body and who had distinguished himself frequently in battle. The drink made him pugnacious, and he challenged to a duel one Dioxippos of Athens, an athlete who had won several glorious victories [including one in the pankration at Olympia in 336 B.C.]. As might be expected of those in their cups, the guests egged them on and Dioxippos accepted the challenge. Alexander set the day for the battle, and when the time came for the duel thousands of men assembled for the spectacle. Because he was one of them, the Macedonians and Alexander rooted for Koragos, while the Greeks favored Dioxippos. Koragos came onto the field of honor clad in the finest armor, while the Athenian was naked with his body oiled and carrying a well-balanced club.

Both men were marvellous to see in their magnificent physical condition and their desire for the fight. The spectators anticipated a veritable battle of gods. The Macedonian looked like Ares as he inspired terror through his stature and the brilliance of his weapons; Dioxippos resembled Herakles in his strength and athletic training, and even more so because he carried a club.

As they approached each other, the Macedonian hurled his javelin from the proper distance, but Dioxippos bent his body slightly and avoided it. Then the Macedonian poised his long pike and charged, but when he came within reach, the Greek struck the pike with his club and splintered it. Now Koragos was reduced to fighting with his sword, but as he went to draw it, Dioxippos leaped upon him, grabbed his sword hand in his own left hand, and with his other hand he upset his opponent’s balance and knocked his feet from under him. As Koragos fell to the ground, Dioxippos placed his foot on the other’s neck and, holding his club in the air, looked to the crowd.

The spectators were in an uproar because of the man’s incredible skill and superiority. Alexander motioned for Koragos to be released, then broke up the gathering and left, clearly annoyed at the defeat of the Macedonian. Dioxippos released his fallen foe and left as winner of a resounding victory. His compatriots bedecked him with ribbons for the victory which he had won on behalf of all the Greeks. But Fortune did not permit him to boast of his victory for very long.

The king became increasingly antagonistic toward Dioxippos, and Alexander’s friends and indeed all the Macedonians about the court, envious of Dioxippos’s arête, persuaded one of the servants to hide a gold drinking cup under the pillow of his dining couch. During the next symposion they pretended to find the cup and accused him of theft. This placed Dioxippos in a shameful and disgraceful position. He understood that the Macedonians were in a conspiracy against him, and he got up and left the symposion. When he had returned to his own quarters, he wrote a note to Alexander about the trick which had been played on him, gave this to his servants for delivery to the king, and then committed suicide. He may have been ill-advised to accept the duel, but he was even more foolish to have done away with himself, for it gave his critics the chance to say that it was a real hardship to have great strength of body, but little of mind.

****

Michael Bell at TOQ Online mentions the fight between Dioxippos and Koragos in his excellent post on the similarities between modern MMA and ancient Greek combat sports.

Greeks vs. Gurkhas

Our loyalties are easily manipulated by emotional narratives, but emotional narratives that would lead us astray are no rival to equally powerful calls imploring our allegiance to primary affiliations. Someone just has to make them.

Polybius 27.9.3-13
Circa 130 B.C.

In the gymnikoi agones when a humble and very inferior boxer is matched against a famous and unbeatable opponent, immediately the crowd splits off its support for the inferior man and they call out encouragement and bob and weave and punch together with him. And if he happens to land a punch on the other guy and marks his face, they jump up and down in their excitement. Sometimes they attack the other fellow with insults, not because they hate or scorn him, but becoming curiously sympathetic toward and naturally supportive of the underdog. But if someone gets their attention at the right time, they quickly change their position and resume their impartiality. They say that Kleitomachos did this, for he appeared to be unstoppable in the games, and his fame was worldwide. But King Ptolemy had ambitions of demolishing his fame, and he prepared and sent off with great pride the boxer Aristonikos, who seemed naturally adapted for this sport.

When Aristonikos arrived in Greece and was set up at the Olympic games against Kleitomachos [216 B.C.], the crowd came to be on Aristonikos’s side and cheered him, happy that someone had dared, even for a little, to stand up against Kleitomachos. When, as the bout proceeded, he appeared to be the equal of, and now and then wounded, Kleitomachos, there was applause and the crowd shared in his attacks and shouted out encouragement to Aristonikos. At that point they say that Kleitomachos, who was standing off and catching his breath, turned to the crowd to learn why they wanted to cheer Aristonikos and take his side as much as they could. Did they think that he was not following the rules of the games? Or did they not understand that he, Kleitomachos, was fighting right now for the fame of Greece, but that Aristonikos was fighting for the fame of King Ptolemy? Did they want to see an Egyptian win the crown at Olympia from the Greeks? Or did they prefer that a Theban and Boeotian be proclaimed as victor in boxing in the men’s category? When Kleitomachos had spoken in this way, they say that there was such a change in the crowd’s feelings that it rather than Kleitomachos finally beat Aristonikos.

The lessons of Lumley

Joanna Lumley’s ‘gift’ to the nation will be one that keeps on giving, and not just in terms of family unification migration and remittances. The multicult wastes nothing as it picks over the history books and the passing scene for examples - good and bad - to imprint onto young minds. I suspect many educators are already drawing up lesson plans for September that will include some reference to Lumley and the Gurkhas’ ‘victory.’ It is automatic, educators are selected in part, by systems designed by the likes of Chris Mullard, for their willingness and ability to promote the multicult, and once employed they operate in a system which rewards this ability and punishes its absence.

In ‘The Camp of the Saints’ Jean Raspail described how educators responded to a fictional equivalent to the Gurkha story, albeit on a larger scale:

At the very same moment thirty-two thousand seven hundred forty-two schoolteachers hit on the subject for the next day’s theme: “Describe the life of the poor, suffering souls on board the ships, and express your feelings toward their plight in detail, by imagining, for example, that one of the desperate families comes to your home and asks you to take them in.” Irresistible, really! And the dear little angel — all simple, childish soul and tender heart — will spread four pages’ worth of infantile pathos, enough to melt a concierge to tears, and his paper will be the best, the teacher will read it in class, and all his little friends will kick themselves for having been much too stingy with their whines and whimpers. That’s how we mold our men nowadays. Because even the tough, hardhearted little brat, the one with all he needs to succeed in this life, is forced to take part, since children abhor standing out from the crowd. So he’ll have to play along too, and work himself into a hypocritical sweat over the same philanthropic rubbish. And he’ll probably write just as brilliant a theme, clever child that he is, and he may even wind up believing what he writes, because youngsters like this are never really bad, just different, that’s all, just untapped potential. Then he’ll go home, like his classmate, both of them proud of their fine compositions. And father, who knows what life is all about, will read the A-plus masterpiece, terrified (if he has the slightest imagination) at the notion of that foreign family of eight coming to live in his three rooms and kitchen, but he’ll sit back and keep his big mouth shut. Mustn’t frustrate the little angels, mustn’t shock them, mustn’t sully their innocent thoughts and risk turning them later into hopeless prigs. No, he’ll wallow, ensnared, in his gutless affection, and chuck his little angel on a cheek flushed with pleasure, telling himself that he’s really a dear, and besides, “out of the mouths of babes,” isn’t that what they say? … The mother will snivel in her handkerchief, eye moist with maternal affection rewarded...

Now, multiply that by a million mindless themes, applauded by a million milksop fathers, and you get some idea of the climate of total decay...

At the very same instant, some seven thousand two hundred and twelve lycée professors decided to begin their next day’s classes with a discussion of racism. It didn’t make the slightest difference what they taught: math, English, chemistry, geography, even Latin. After all, whatever his field, isn’t the professor’s role to develop his students’ minds and force them to think? And so, they would have them speak their piece. The subject was there, ideal, made to order, too good to pass up: the fleet and its mission to cleanse and redeem the capitalist West! A fine topic, politically charged, with something for everyone, a limitless script in that ongoing cinema of the masses, spontaneous and unrehearsed, whose feeble and trite ideas, hashed over again and again, swallowed up any sense of reality, any notion of personal obligation.

Nurses warned not to think...

Designed only to have a chilling effect on dissenting views:

The Royal College of Nursing is to issue guidance to its members on dealing with ‘contentious political parties’, such as the BNP.

The college will not bar members from joining extremist political parties, nor will it criticise any political party, but the RCN’s director of communications Amanda Callaghan said guidance would remind members of the College’s commitment to equality and diversity.

Ms Callaghan said the RCN’s charitable status prevented it from either supporting or ‘not supporting’ political parties, and as a trade union it could not align itself politically. ‘But if we don’t engage with the debate, there could be a perception that we don’t care, or even that there is tacit agreement’, she said.

Ms Callaghan said the increased number of political representatives from parties like the BNP on local authorities, and even the fact that BNP chairman Nick Griffin now sits on the public health committee of the European Parliament, meant nurses were more likely to encounter extremist political parties in their day-to-day work.

Debate? The BNP would welcome one. The RCN’s actions here are designed to forestall the need ever to debate the BNP’s ideas.

They need us to be bad...

Anti-nationalists need to believe we’re bad to justify their hatred of us.

In response to ‘Jew with a View’ - a redundancy there? - and her urging that the ‘mainstream,’ i.e. anti-British, parties should ‘act now on immigration’ to ensure the BNP (‘vile wannabe Hitlers’) don’t get into power and act on their ‘desperate’ desire to ‘cleanse Britain’ of ‘Jews and Asians and Muslims and Black people,’ I wrote:

The main reason people vote for the BNP is the belief that the native Britons have the right to control our own country. The ‘mainstream’ parties you would have us vote for all agree on the rights of non-European peoples to enjoy this advantage, and you will be aware that they are most vocal about this right when discussing your people and its state, the much promoted ‘right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state’. And the BNP agrees with ’em.

The difference between the BNP and the others is over the right of Euros to control our homelands, this means the BNP is exceptional because it is not anti-White, not because of its views about non-Whites.

Oh, and far from being anti-Semitic as you imply, the BNP agrees that Jews are entitled to their own country and so may reasonably pursue immigration policies which discriminate against all other peoples including the English, Welsh and Scots, but insists that the English, Welsh and Scots in our countries should not discriminate against Jews for the same purposes. This is a minor double standard telling in favour of Jews, thus making the BNP just a tad anti-British in relation to one particular people.


The comment stood for a short while at her blog before ‘Tabatha’ found my plea that she allow us something close to equality - not even equality! - too much ‘hate’ to handle and deleted it.

Confused, Darling?

Alistair Darling is feigning puzzlement at the reluctance of banks to lend to small business. He’d better hope that the sheep don’t watch Money Masters, they might realise they’re being fleeced:

[The Goldsmiths] also discovered that extra profits could be made by “rowing” the economy between easy money and tight money. When they made money easier to borrow, then the amount of money in circulation expanded. Money was plentiful. People took out more loans to expand their businesses. But then the goldsmiths would tighten the money supply. They would make loans more difficult to get.

What would happen? Just what happens today. A certain percentage of people could not repay their previous loans, and could not take out new loans to repay the old ones. Therefore they went bankrupt, and had to sell their assets to the goldsmiths or at auction for pennies on the dollar.

The same thing is still going on today, and today we call this rowing of the economy, up and down, the “Business Cycle,” or more recently in the stock markets, “corrections”.

You can’t blame Darling, though:

[T]he American people elected Republican James Garfield President. Garfield understood how the economy was being manipulated. As a Congressman, he had been chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and was a member of the Banking and Currency Committee. After his inauguration, he slammed the Money Changers publically in 1881:

“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

Garfield understood. Within a few weeks of making this statement, on July 2 of 1881, President Garfield was assassinated.

Watch the video here: Part One, Part Two

The ‘Goddess’ Lumley

The Joanna Lumley / Gurkha story offers a demonstration of how easily the public can be manipulated against its settled views and its best interests by mindless feel-good arguments. Nobody who’s thought about it for a second really believes that the Gurkhas ‘risked their lives for Britain,’ they were mercenary soldiers fighting for payment.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it was all along an exercise in testing the media’s power to direct public opinion concerning a rapidly emerging political issue. Even the BNP felt it necessary to recognise the Gurkhas’ absurd claim, not a good sign for the future. Conclusion: there is no such thing as ‘Too much love, drooling like syrup from too many famous mouths!’ (The Camp of the Saints)

British Pakistan...

the coming thing, apparently....

BRITISH PAKISTAN SIDE SET TO DEBUT

Rugby League history will be made on Sunday (19th July) at the Grattan Stadium when the first British Pakistan XIII make their competitive bow against the Great Britain Under 18s Community Lions, in a curtain raiser to the Engage Super League clash between Bradford and Wigan.

The British Pakistan side has come about thanks to a unique collaborative venture between the Connecting Communities Project, Rugby League European Federation, Bradford City Council, Bradford College, Bradford University and Bradford Bulls.

The side will carry the logos of the RLEF, who have funded their distinctive green, red, white and blue kit because of the cultural ties between Pakistan and Europe and ‘Connecting Communities’ which is part of the Leeds Rugby Foundation.

The British Pakistan side is supported by BARA, the British Asian Rugby Association, whose Director Ikram Butt is also the Manager for the groundbreaking ‘Connecting Communities’ Project.

‘Connecting communities’ through ethnic separatism -- funny how that’s always the way except when we want to enjoy our own company.

Ikram Butt, the first Muslim rugby international, may be tempted to don his boots as part of the initial 22-man British Pakistan squad.

“The team comprises of players born in the UK and Ireland and aims to celebrate our geographical and cultural heritage, which are equally important to us” he commented.

Geographic heritage? Geographic conquest more like - that’s what Ikram and his pals are celebrating and who can blame ’em?

“We are also extremely grateful to Leeds Rhinos who have kindly allowed us to train at their first class facilities in Kirkstall for the past three weeks.”

“Our next venture will be to play against West Yorkshire Police in mid August.”

Do you imagine the Rhinos or the Police would be quite so friendly to a separatist grouping that happened to be White?

Media rejoice as White people lose out to ‘vibrant’ import…

In a post about British Telecom’s anti-White recruitment policies I commented on the familiar ritual of ‘progress’ being measured by the extent to which White people have been removed from power and generally displaced by non-Whites. The rather surprising victory of Rachel Christie in the Miss England beauty contest offered an excuse for media rejoicing about just such White displacement: Christie is Black.

I won Miss England to prove being black is NEVER an excuse for failure
First Black Miss England crowned
Victory for Linford Christie's niece as she becomes first black Miss England
100m star Christie's niece crowned first black Miss England
Linford Christie's niece is first black Miss England

ITN news reported the story like all others with the new Miss England’s race being the primary issue and the factor which made this an especially positive news story. Its reporter claimed that Christie’s non-Whiteness made her a ‘thoroughly modern beauty queen’ - non-Whiteness as contemporary value-in-itself, rarely is it stated so openly. The not-so subtle implication being that the White phenotype is passé and that Whites who would have the beautiful kids of the future should breed out.

[On a side note, the other prominent element in the coverage was Christie’s famous uncle, retired sprinter Linford Christie. Even though the retired sprinter is a disgraced drug cheat the media continue to speak of him respectfully and I take this to be related to race also. So few Blacks prove worthy of role-model status, and their ‘community’ is apparently so in need of the few positive role-models that exist that Christie manages to avoid the negative media treatment a White drugs cheat would deservedly receive.]

****

Update: Hints of political motives behind Miss Christie’s otherwise baffling victory:

Organisers defend Miss England vote
(UKPA)

The organisers of the Miss England contest have defended the competition after it emerged that the winner, the niece of Olympic gold medal-winning sprinter Linford Christie, won with only nine votes from the public.

Angie Beasley, director of Miss England, said the public played only a part in the contest, choosing one of the 15 top finalists with this vote amounting effectively to a seventh judge in the final selection.

She said Rachel Christie, 20, a heptathlete from London, was awarded first place by four of the six judges on the night - including the model Caprice - who assessed candidates on factors such as posture and confidence.

She said: "When it gets to the top 15, they are judged on their confidence and their posture on stage and they are judged on their beauty and their personality. When it gets to the top 15 you cannot have the public vote judging that, it has to be a professional panel."

The vote for Ms Christie comes after Zoiey Smale, Miss Oxfordshire, won the public vote with 2,013 votes. Ms Christie finished 49th out of the 54 original finalists.

Under the rules, eight of the final 15 are winners of categories such as Miss Public Vote - won by Ms Smale - with seven selected by contest judges.

Ms Christie, who hopes to compete in the 2012 Olympics, won the Helen E Cosmetic award to reach the final.

One contestant, quoted anonymously in The Sun newspaper, questioned the "odd" judges' decision. She said: "It seems very odd that the overall winner, chosen by the judges, won so few public votes. The competition is far more than just a beauty contest, but it looks like the judges were totally out of touch with the public."

White Slavery in Early America

In They were White and they were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America, revisionist author Michael A. Hoffman II put together a remarkable record of White slavery in America from historical documents. What follows is only a small part of the evidence he presents.

White Slavery in Early America

David Brion Davis writing in the New York Review of Books, Oct. 11, 1990, p. 37 states:

“As late as the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, continuing shipments of white slaves, some of them Christians, flowed from the booming slave markets on the northern Black Sea coast into Italy, Spain, Egypt and the Mediterranean islands... From Barbados to Virginia, colonists.., showed few scruples about reducing their less fortunate countrymen to a status little different from that of chattel slaves... The prevalence and suffering of white slaves, serfs and indentured servants in the early modern period suggests that there was nothing inevitable about limiting plantation slavery to people of African origin.”

L. Ruchames in “The Sources of Racial Thought in Colonial America,” states that “the slave trade worked in both directions, with white merchandise as well as black.” (Journal of Negro History, no. 52, pp. 251-273).

In 1659 the English parliament debated the practice of selling British Whites into slavery in the New World. In the debate the Whites were referred to not as “indentured servants” but as “slaves” whose “enslavement” threatened the liberties of all Englishmen. (Thomas Burton, Parliamentary Diary: 1656-59, vol. 4, pp. 253-274).

Foster R. Dulles in Labor in America quotes an early document describing White children in colonial servitude as “crying and mourning for redemption from their slavery.”

Dr. Hilary McD. Beckles of the University of Hull, England, writes regarding White slave labor, “...indenture contracts were alienable... the ownership of which could easily be transferred, like that of any other commodity... as with slaves, ownership changed without their participation in the dialogue concerning transfer.” Beckles refers to “indentured servitude” as “White proto-slavery” (The Americas, vol. 41, no. 2, p. 21).

In the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series; America and West Indies of 1701, we read of a protest over the “encouragement to the spiriting away of Englishmen without their consent and selling them for slaves, which hath been a practice very frequent and known by the name of kidnapping.” (Emphasis added). In the British West Indies, plantation slavery was instituted as early as 1627. In Barbados by the 1640s there were an estimated 25,000 slaves, of whom 21,700 were White.

(“Some Observations on the Island of Barbados,” Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, p. 528). It is worth noting that while White slaves were worked to death in Barbados, there were Caribbean Indians brought from Guiana to help propagate native foodstuffs who were well-treated and received as free persons by the wealthy planters.

Of the fact that the wealth of Barbados was founded on the backs of White slave labor there can be no doubt. White slave laborers from Britain and Ireland were the mainstay of the sugar colony. Until the mid-1640s there were few Blacks in Barbados. George Downing wrote to John Winthrop, the colonial governor of Massachusetts in 1645, that planters who wanted to make a fortune in the British West Indies must procure White slave labor “out of England” if they wanted to succeed. (Elizabeth Donnan, Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America, pp. 125-126).

“...white indentured servants were employed and treated, incidentally, exactly like slaves...” (Morley Ayearst, The British West Indies, p. 19).

“The many gradations of unfreedom among Whites made it difficult to draw fast lines between any idealized free White worker and a pitied or scorned servile Black worker... in labor-short seventeenth and eighteenth-century America the work of slaves and that of White servants were virtually interchangeable in most areas.” (David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class, p. 25).

In the Massachusetts Court of Assistants, whose records date to 1633, we find a 1638 description of a White man, one Gyles Player, as having been “delivered up for a slave.”

The Englishman William Eddis, after observing White slaves in America in the 1770s wrote, “Generally speaking, they groan beneath a worse than Egyptian bondage” (Letters from America, London, 1792). Governor Sharpe of the Maryland colony compared the property interest of the planters in their White slaves, with the estate of an English farmer consisting of a “Multitude of Cattle.”

The Quock Walker case in Massachusetts in 1783 which ruled that slavery was contrary to the state Constitution, was applied equally to Blacks and Whites in Massachusetts.

Patrick F. Moran in his Historical Sketch of the Persecutions Suffered by the Catholics of Ireland, refers to the transportation of the Irish to the colonies as the “slave-trade” (pp. 343-346).

The disciplinary and revenue laws of early Virginia (circa 1631-1645) did not discriminate Negroes in bondage from Whites in bondage. (William Hening [editor], Statutes at Large of Virginia, vol. I, pp. 174, 198, 200, 243, 306. For records of wills in which “Lands, goods & chattels, cattle, moneys, ne-groes, English servants, horses, sheep and household stuff” were all sold together see the Lancaster County Records in Virginia Colonial Abstracts, Beverly Fleet, editor).

Lay historian Col. A.B. Ellis, writing in the British newspaper Argosy (May 6, 1893): “Few, but readers of old colonial State papers and records, are aware that between the years 1649-1690 a lively trade was carried on between England and the plantations, as the colonies were then called, in politi-cal prisoners... where they were sold by auction to the colonists for various terms of years, sometimes for life as slaves.”

Sir George Sandys’ 1618 plan for Virginia referred to bound Whites assigned to the treasurer’s of-fice to “belong to said office for ever.” The service of Whites bound to Berkeley’s Hundred was deemed “perpetual.” (Lewis Cecil Gray, History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860, vol. I, pp. 316, 318).

Certainly the enslaved Whites themselves recognized their condition with painful clarity. As one White man, named Abram, who was accused of trying to agitate a rebellion stated to his fellows, “Wherefore should wee stay here and be slaves?”

In a statement smuggled out of the New World and published in London, Whites in bondage did not call themselves “indentured servants.” In their writing they referred to themselves as “England’s slaves” and England’s “merchandise.” (Marcellus Rivers and Oxenbridge Foyle, England’s Slavery, 1659).

Eyewitnesses like Pere Labat who visited the West Indian slave plantations of the 17th century which were built and manned by White slaves labeled them “White slaves” and nothing less (Memoirs of Pere Labat, 1693-1705, p. 125). Even Blacks referred to the White forced laborers in the colonies as “white slaves.” (Colonial Office, Public Records Office, London, 1667, no. 170)

Sot-Weed Factor, or, a Voyage to Maryland, a pamphlet circulated in 1708, articulates the plight of tens of thousands of pathetic young White girls kidnapped from England and enslaved in colonial America, lamenting that:

In better Times e’er to this Land
I was unhappily Trepan’d;
Not then a slave...
But things are changed... Kidnap’d and Fool’d...

The height of academic and media fraud is revealed in the monopolistic trademark status the official controllers of education and mass communications have successfully established between the definition of the word “slave” and the negro, while labeling descriptions of the historic experience of Whites in slavery a fallacy. Yet the very word “slave,” which the establishment’s consensus school of history pretends cannot legitimately be applied to Whites, is derived from the word Slav. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word slave is another name for the White people of eastern Europe, the Slavs. (Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, p. 2,858).

In other words, slave has always been a term for and a definition of a servile condition of White people. Yet we are told by the professorcrats that it is not correct to refer to Whites as slaves but only as servants, even though the very root of the word is derived from the historical fact of White slavery.

Jewish ‘Radanite’ slave-traders of the Arab Empire

Jews in Poland: A Documentary History: The Rise of Jews as a Nation from Congressus Judaicus in Poland to the Knesset in Israel by Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski (Hippocrene Books, New York, 1998)

By A.D. 500 the Babylonian Talmud was written determining the character of Judaism as a national religion. It became a code of religious and civil law observed by the vast majority of Jewish communities in Europe, Africa, and Asia.

[...]

The Babylonian Talmud emphasized that Jews were a chosen people and therefore superior to others. It helped to create Jewish charisma and served as the basic text of Judaism.

[...]

The Babylonian Talmud was the basis for the ethical and cultural development of the masses of Orthodox Jews in central and eastern Europe until the German genocide of the Jews in World War II. It has formed the mentality and specific way of thinking of Orthodox Jews. It inspired the development of modern Jewish nationalism. The Babylonian Talmud gave to Judaism the character of an exclusive national religion of the Jews in Europe, Asia, and Africa.

[p.256]

After completion of the Babylonian Talmud in Mesopotamia the next most important cultural center of Jewish Diaspora was established within the Arab Empire, in Arab Spain, the most civilized country in Europe in the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries. Arab Spain was the scene of flourishing Jewish culture between the 8th and 15th centuries.

[...]

The situation of Jews within the Arab Empire was normalized in A.D. 637 by the decree of Omar I. Jews in Islam were recognized as “tolerated infidels.” Most medieval Jews resided in Spain. Jewish medieval merchants were known as “Radanites.” They included western European Jews from France and Germany, as well as those from Arab Spain.

The term “Radanites” was derived from the name of the Arab-Christian border along the river Rhone (in Latin Rodanus) because of an intense slave trade which was conducted across it. The slaves were castrated in Verdun, Venice, and Lyon and sold by Jewish Radanite slave-traders to the Arabs of Spain. This Jewish slave trade also included girls and small boys who were properly indoctrinated in order to be used later by Arab rulers as bodyguards, slave soldiers and bureaucrats.

An alternate origin of the name “Radanite” was a Persian word for those who “knew the way.” This explanation was related to the leading role of Jewish merchants in trade after the fall of the Roman Empire. From the 7th century to mid-10th century Radanites controlled the trade which encompassed Europe, North Africa, and southern Asia including China. It was a period when Hebrew was the only language of world trade.

[p.257]

Arab Spain was the main market for slaves (eunuchs, girls, and young boys). Some slaves were sold as far away as China, which also bought furs, beaver skins, silk, and weapons. Exports from China to Europe included cinnamon, spices, musk, and camphor. The capital of Khazaria, Itil, was an important Jewish trading center. Jewish merchants played an important role in international trade after the fall of the Roman Empire. For two centuries they made Hebrew the only language of world commerce. Slavery, which was the foundation of the Roman economy, was important in the Arab Empire in which the Jews became the main merchants, trading with the infidels and bringing European slaves to Islam.

[p.259]

Jews in service of Boleslaus the Great minted his coins and inscribed on them the name of the Polish sovereign with Hebrew letters. Besides such highly valued craftsmen there were active in Poland Jewish slave-traders. Ever since the time when the economy of Rome was based on slavery the slave trade has continued. In the 11th century the main slave market was in Arab Spain, then the most civilized country in Europe. The Catholic Church fought against slavery and this fight is documented in the treatise “Infelix Aurum” by the first patron saint of Poland, and since A.D. 997 the first bishop of Gdansk, Adalbert or Wojciech (voy-chekh). In the struggle against the slave trade the family of St. Adalbert lost the Czech throne in Prague to their opponents supported by Jewish slave traders. One of 18 sculptures on the 1170 bronze door made for the cathedral of Gniezno depicted the scene of redeeming manacled Christian slaves by a Polish bishop from Jewish merchants in the presence of the son of King Boleslaus the Great, the second formally crowned King of Poland, Mieszko II (990-1034).

The oldest Jewish community in Poland existed in Przemysl. It was apparently composed of Jews from the Khazar kingdom which was conquered in A.D. 965 by the Kievian Rus. The Turkmen Khazar state was located between the Black and Caspian Seas. The first Jewish colonies in southern Poland were apparently organized to exchange forest products, horses, hides, furs, swords, and slaves of both sexes from the west for luxury goods from the east. The Jews generally used Arab money mostly from Spain and their main operation was in the Czech capital of Prague where Boleslaus the Great ruled in 1003-1004, when Bohemia was a part of his empire.

[p.266]

White slaves in America

From the introductory chapter to Don Jordan and Michael Walsh, White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain’s White Slaves in America (New York University Press, New York, 2008):

In the summer of 2003, archaeologists excavated a seventeenth century site outside Annapolis, Maryland, and discovered the skeleton of a teenage boy. Examination showed the boy to have died sometime in the 1660s. He was about sixteen years old and had tuberculosis. His skull showed evidence of a fearful mouth infection, and herniated discs and other injuries to his back were synonymous with years of hard toil.

The youth was neither African nor Native American. He was northern European, probably English. His remains were found in what had been the cellar of a seventeenth-century house, in a hole under a pile of household waste. It was as if the boy was of so little account that after he died he was thrown out with the rubbish.

Forensic anthropologists believe the youth was probably an indentured servant – the deceptively mild label commonly used to describe hundreds of thousands of men, women and children shipped from Britain to America and the Caribbean in the 150 years before the Boston Tea Party in 1773. Most of these servants paid their passage to the Americas by selling the rights to their labour for a number of years. Others were forcibly exiled and sold in the colonies as servants for up to fourteen years. Many were effectively enslaved.

While the Spanish slaughtered in America for gold, the English in America had to plant for their wealth. Failing to find the expected mineral riches along the eastern seaboard, they turned to farming, hoping to make gold from tobacco. They needed a compliant, subservient, preferably free labour force and since the indigenous peoples of America were difficult to enslave they turned to their own homeland to provide. They imported Britons deemed to be ‘surplus’ people – the rootless, the unemployed, the criminal and the dissident – and held them in the Americas in various forms of bondage for anything from three years to life.

This book tells the story of these victims of empire. They were all supposed to gain their freedom eventually. For many, it didn’t work out that way. In the early decades, half of them died in bondage. This book tracks the evolution of the system in which tens of thousands of whites were held as chattels, marketed like cattle, punished brutally and in some cases literally worked to death. For decades, this underclass was treated just as savagely as black slaves and, indeed, toiled, suffered and rebelled alongside them. Eventually, a racial wedge was thrust between white and black,
leaving blacks officially enslaved and whites apparently upgraded but in reality just as enslaved as they were before. According to contemporaries, some whites were treated with less humanity than the blacks working alongside them.

Among the first to be sent were children. Some were dispatched by impoverished parents seeking a better life for them. But others were forcibly deported. In 1618, the authorities in London began to sweep up hundreds of troublesome urchins from the slums and, ignoring protests from the children and their families, shipped them to Virginia. England’s richest man was behind this mass expulsion. It was presented as an act of charity: the ‘starving children’ were to be given a new start as apprentices in America. In fact, they were sold to planters to work in the fields and half of them were dead within a year. Shipments of children continued from England and then from Ireland for decades. Many of these migrants were little more than toddlers. In 1661, the wife of a man who imported four ‘Irish boys’ into Maryland as servants wondered why her husband had not brought ‘some cradles to have rocked them in’ as they were ‘so little’.

A second group of forced migrants from the mother country were those, such as vagrants and petty criminals, whom England’s rulers wished to be rid of. The legal ground was prepared for their relocation by a highwayman turned Lord Chief Justice who argued for England’s gaols to be emptied in America. Thanks to men like him, 50,000 to 70,000 convicts (or maybe more) were transported to Virginia, Maryland, Barbados and England’s other American possessions before 1776. All manner of others considered undesirable by the British Crown were also dispatched across the Atlantic to be sold into servitude. They ranged from beggars to prostitutes, Quakers to Cavaliers.

A third group were the Irish. For centuries, Ireland had been something of a special case in English colonial history. From the Anglo-Normans onwards, the Irish were dehumanised, described as savages, so making their murder and displacement appear all the more justified. The colonisation of Ireland provided experience and drive for experiments further afield, not to mention large numbers of workers, coerced, transported or persuaded. Under Oliver Cromwell’s ethnic-cleansing policy in Ireland, unknown numbers of Catholic men, women and children were forcibly transported to the colonies. And it did not end with Cromwell; for at least another hundred years, forced transportation continued as a fact of life in Ireland.

The other unwilling participants in the colonial labour force were the kidnapped. Astounding numbers are reported to have been snatched from the streets and countryside by gangs of kidnappers or ‘spirits’ working to satisfy the colonial hunger for labour. Based at every sizeable port in the British Isles, spirits conned or coerced the unwary onto ships bound for America. London’s most active kidnap gang discussed their targets at a daily meeting in St Paul’s Cathedral. They were reportedly paid £2 by planters’ agents for every athletic-looking young man they brought aboard. According to a contemporary who campaigned against the black slave trade, kidnappers were snatching an average of around 10,000 whites a year – doubtless an exaggeration but one that indicates a problem serious enough to create its own grip on the popular mind.

Along with the vast numbers ejected from Britain and forced to slave in the colonies were the still greater multitudes who went of their own free will: those who became indentured servants in the Americas in return for free passage and perhaps the promise of a plot of land. Between 1620 and 1775, these volunteer servants, some 300,000, accounted for two out of three migrants from the British Isles.4 Typically, these ‘free-willers’, as they came to be called, were the poor and the hopeful who agreed to sacrifice their personal liberty for a period of years in the eventual hope of a better life. On arrival, they found that they had the status of chattels, objects of personal property, with few effective rights. But there was no going back. They were stuck like the tar on the keels of the ships that brought them. Some, of course, were bought by humane, even generous, masters and survived their years of bondage quite happily to emerge from servitude to build a prosperous future. But some of the most abused servants were from among the freewillers.

It invites uproar to describe as slaves any of these hapless whites who were abused, beaten and sometimes killed by their masters or their masters’ overseers. To do so is thought to detract from the enormity of black suffering after racial slavery developed. However, black slavery emerged out of white servitude and was based upon it. As the African-American writer Lerone Bennett Jr has observed:

When someone removes the cataracts of whiteness from our eyes, and when we look with unclouded vision on the bloody shadows of the American past, we will recognize for the first time that the Afro-American, who was so often second in freedom, was also second in slavery.

It has been argued that white servants could not have been truly enslaved because there was generally a time limit to their enforced labour, whereas black slavery was for life. However, slavery is not defined by time but by the experience of its subject. To be the chattel of another, to be required by law to give absolute obedience in everything and to be subject to whippings, brandings and chaining for any show of defiance, to be these things, as were many whites, was to be enslaved. Daniel Defoe, writing in the early 1700s, described indentured servants as ‘more properly called slaves’. Taking his cue, we should call a slave a slave.

The Oxford Dictionary defines as slaves persons who are the legal property of another or others and bound to absolute obedience: in short, ‘human chattels’. By this definition white servants were the first slaves in America and it is upon their labour, and later that of African-American slaves, that the nation was initially built. Today, tens of millions of white Americans are descended from such chattels. It is a shame that few in America claim these largely forgotten men and women of the early frontier as their own.

White slavery as one form of jihad

From Frederick C. Leiner, The End of Barbary Terror: America’s 1815 War Against the Pirates of North Africa:

The Tripolitan ambassador in London had explained to Thomas Jefferson years earlier that the Barbary states’ policy toward the Christian world “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them whenever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” This duty to war on the infidels was called jihad. The Barbary corsairs’ jihad was not based on xenophobia, nihilism, or religious fundamentalism, although the deys varied in their religious fervor and asceticism. Rather, it was the Barbary way of life, a state of perpetual, organized, state-regulated maritime violence and kidnapping, sanctioned by time and the Islamic sense of superiority over Christians. Although their jihad did not have an explicit political goal, as restoring the caliphate (the furthest geographical advance of Islam into southern Europe) is to twenty-first century militant Islam, slave-taking was jihad, and the tactics employed by the corsairs were a form of terrorism, a method of seaborne violence meant to intimidate the peoples of Europe. [pp.17-18]

BT and AA

June 2009

Working with recruitment agencies to make requirements clear has been the key to creating a racially diverse workforce at BT, according to the telecoms firm.

This week BT came top of the Race for Opportunity index, which uses survey data to benchmark the most race-friendly employers in the country. The research looked at the policies and practices used by organisations in attraction and recruitment, talent progression, measurement of diversity, and engaging with customers, suppliers and the wider community.

Becky Mason, people and policy manager, BT Group, highlighted work with suppliers as a key factor in the firm’s success. ‘The work we have been doing with recruitment agencies - our suppliers of people - is crucial. We demonstrate our policies to them and ask them to tell us what their policy is. It’s quite clear, stating the standards that we expect, that we expect to be sent a diverse mix of candidates and for agencies to set in place statistical monitoring of their processes statistics to ensure that is the case.’

BT reviews its preferred suppliers every 2-3 years and HR works with procurement colleagues to ensure that diversity is a factor in these decisions, added Mason.

BT currently has 10.8 per cent BME staff, which is in excess of the proportion in the population overall of around 8 per cent. Mason also pointed out that, with three people from a BME background on BT’s board, there was no doubt that minorities were able to progress in the organisation.

‘If initiatives such as BT’s encouraging of its suppliers to sign-up to minimum standards on race diversity were to become common practice, I am confident that the UK could make real progress on tackling the gross under-representation of ethnic minorities,’ said Sandra Kerr, national campaign director for Race for Opportunity.

July 2009

BT is asking its staff to take a 75% pay cut in return for long-term holidays to help the company ride-out the recession. British Telecom is offering workers the chance to take a year off if they accept a fraction of their salary as an upfront payment. It is part of a raft of measures being introduced by BT to cut costs until the economy improves without having to resort to further redundancies.

The former state telecom company, which employs more the 100,000 people, posted £1.3billion losses for the first quarter of this year. BT cut 15,000 jobs this year, mostly in the UK, and claims these ‘extremely progressive’ measures are necessary to save further losses. A spokesman said: “BT is known for it’s progressive human resources policies with flexible working.”

****

The familiar ritual, emphasised in the first link, of measuring progress by the extent to which White people have been dislodged from power and representation by other races really ought to be met with fury from White people.

Of course it would be simplistic to claim a direct cause and effect relationship between BT’s anti-White discrimination and its poor results, but only as simplistic as an assumption that anti-White discrimination would lead to good results. The difference is, anyone so stupid as to make the first claim would not be allowed to run employment policy for a major PLC. BT’s staff are entitled to ask what other idiotic ideas the management have wasted time and money on, and to insist the company discontinue this one.

Buchanan on the navy whose ‘number one priority is diversity’

Pat Buchanan comments on the claim that the US Naval Academy sets lower admission standards for non-White candidates than for White ones. It is not surprising, of course - as Buchanan points out that kind of anti-White discrimination is widespread - but he draws attention to the critical difference between gormless supermarket managers and senior military officers who ‘struggle to master basic concepts’:

these students will be operating the most sophisticated and complex weapons systems ever built -- aircraft carriers, Aegis cruisers, nuclear submarines.

This sums up the problem of developed liberalism: even in the midst of war the principle of ‘equality’ must over-ride everything even to the peril of national security (and of global security if we are to believe the rhetoric of the ‘War on Terror’). Ultimately it must prove suicidal.

More Barbary Terror

From Frederick C. Leiner, The End of Barbary Terror: America’s 1815 War Against the Pirates of North Africa:

... historically, the major point of contact between the Barbary regencies and Europe was slavery: corsair ships sailing out of the Maghreb seized European merchant ships and sold their crews and passengers into captivity.

For centuries, the Barbary states had run a lucrative racket of enslaving Christians. Algiers, which Mordecai Noah, later the American consul to Tunis, called “the sink of iniquity and curse of humanity,” was the “great depot” of Christian slaves. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Algiers alone was said to have held thirty thousand captives—in the 1620s, more British subjects lived as slaves in Islamic North Africa than as freemen in the colonies of North America. At the height of the corsairs’ activity, their audacity shocked Europe. In 1631, corsairs descended on the village of Baltimore, in Ireland, and seized the entire population, carrying them back to slavery in Algiers. Algerine corsairs raided villages as far away as Cornwall and Devon in England for men, women, and children. Of course, the coastal areas of Tuscany, Sardinia, Sicily, and the Greek isles were closer to the North African ports from which the corsairs sailed, and easier and more constant targets, since they did not have a coast guard or military force sufficient to stop or deter hit-and-run raids.

By 1800, the racket was simple and time-tested. Ships of all the mercantile nations wanted to trade throughout the Mediterranean. Barbary mariners have loosely come down through history as “pirates,” but in fact the corsairs were state-owned or state-syndicated, and their practices were not outlawed under the slowly evolving notions of the law of nations. Indeed, under Islamic law, the seizures of ships from Christian countries were an article of faith, part of the jihad against nonbelievers. Armed Barbary ships darted out from a dozen ports to seize European ships and their cargoes, which, upon their return to port, Barbary courts condemned as lawful prizes, with the result that the European seamen and passengers carried back to Algiers, Tunis, or Tripoli, were enslaved.

White slavery on the Barbary coast was essentially a system of regulated commercial kidnapping, the Christians seized from Europe or America in the first instance with the notion of being trading back for cash. In fact, the entire Barbary enterprise was regulated by foreign nations. For generation upon generation, European kingdoms entered into treaties with each of the Barbary regencies, paying an annual bribe called “tribute” as protection money against the seizure of any of their subjects for the duration of the treaty. From time to time, Spain, France, Holland, Denmark, and Britain sent naval squadrons to deter or punish the Barbary corsairs—or at least to try to force upon the Barbary rulers a new treaty reducing the amount of tribute exacted. But for the most part, the European nations were willing to pay cash, or tribute in the form of naval stores, gunpowder, or ships, for the privilege of having their ships and mariners remain unmolested. That paying tribute was a protection racket was widely understood, but paying the Barbary rulers a “license” for trade was less expensive than constantly convoying ships or attacking the Barbary powers in their heavily fortified ports. Besides, wealthier kingdoms recognized that while they could afford to pay off the Barbary powers, other, poorer, European nations could not. With a wink and a nod, the payments by the wealthy kingdoms of northern Europe tacitly encouraged Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis to seize the ships of the poorer maritime nations of southern Europe, thereby disproportionately raising their costs of doing business. Based on that logic, in the 1780s, Benjamin Franklin wrote that the Barbary “Corsaires” might “be privately encouraged by the English to fall upon [American vessels], to prevent our Interference in the Carrying Trade; for I have in London heard it as a Maxim among the Merchants, that, if there were no Algiers, it would be worth England’s while to build one.” The poorer and smaller mercantile states that could not afford regular tribute suffered large losses of seafaring men—the bagnio contained mostly Portuguese, Neapolitans, Sardinians, Sicilians, and Greeks—which helped preserve the mercantile dominance of Britain, Sweden, and Denmark.

After British Admiral Lord Nelson’s triumph at the battle of Trafalgar in October 1805, the Royal Navy was able to establish an effective blockade of French-controlled Mediterranean ports, which ranged from Spain through the Adriatic. The British naval ascendancy in the Mediterranean meant that the Barbary corsairs had fewer targets, and the Barbary regencies were forced to promote legitimate trade and to downplay slave taking. While the Barbary regencies were increasingly integrated into Europe by virtue of shipping goods during the Napoleonic Wars, it would be a mistake to think that the taking of Christian slaves was on the wane—particularly by Algiers. Taking and ransoming European slaves remained critical to the economies of Islamic North Africa, a foundation of their society and culture, and literally a life-and-death issue for the ruling dey, whose support among the janissaries required a constant refreshing of the number of slaves held captive. [pp.13-15]

G20 follow-up post

In a previous post I quoted CEEFAX and the BBC’s online news service:

‘police must modify their behaviour in an age where their actions were easily filmed by the public.’

I doubted the reporting thinking perhaps some journalist was being careless, but finally having found the time to check the HAC report myself I see the MPs are just as venal as claimed.

House of Commons, Home Affairs Committee, Policing of the G20 Protests
Page 8:

18. This was borne out in the footage of force used against, among others Nicola Fisher and tragically, Ian Tomlinson—this footage was almost instantly uploaded onto the internet and transmitted around the world. The police’s actions in each case may or may not be justifiable but they were certainly shocking. Actions which may appear justifiable in the cold light of day can be extremely troubling when relayed instantaneously around the globe. While these images provide only one, possibly misleading viewpoint, they undeniably have power to shake the public’s confidence in the police and negatively affect their perception of the performance of the police at the G20.

19. The police must be aware that, as a matter of course, their actions will be filmed whether or not journalists are present. They must amend their attitude and tactics accordingly. The police should be aware that in the modern world actions which may be justifiable under the rules may nonetheless be completely unacceptable.

[bolded emphasis in original]

Raul and Bernie II

There are two obvious reasons the establishment would prefer to keep the holocaust story simple and so attack someone like Ecclestone for offering a more nuanced take than the typical~ ‘Hitler was an evil anti-Semite who wanted to murder all of Europe’s Jews and settled on death camps with poison-gas chambers as the method to achieve this.’ The simple narrative lends itself to use for two programs central to the worldview of our elites, anti-nationalism for most of us, coupled with fierce nationalism for Jews.

But there’s a third explanation for the pitiless attack on Ecclestone and it may also explain why people that are surely aware of Hilberg’s research, work that seems to justify Ecclestone’s comments, are among his most vociferous critics.

Here, again, are Hilberg’s words:

1) “There was no pre-established guiding plan. As for the question of the decision, it is in part unsolvable: no order signed by Hitler has ever been found, doubtless because no such document ever existed. I am persuaded that the bureaucracies moved through a sort of latent structure: each decision brings on another, then another, and so forth, even if it isn’t possible to foresee exactly the next step.” (In Le Monde des Livres, October 26th, 2006)

2) “What began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.” (February 22nd, 1983 at an event arranged by the Holocaust Survivors Foundation, quoted in Newsday a day later)

‘Colin Laney’ in a comments thread at MajorityRights.com remarks on the implication of these statements if true:

[quote] It should be acknowledged that even Yad Vashem does not hold that there were death camps inside of Germany. This is very significant: every camp that might meet the conditions of the hypothetical death camps just happen to be those which were captured by the Red Army …

Since [the revisionist] case has taken the day with regards to all of the camps captured by the West, there is strong reason to believe that the case you make that begins with the officers in these camps intuiting and carrying out the wishes of their superiors is not sustainable. Part of your case is plausible, that officers in the field understand their broader mandate and pursued it under their individual initiative, but how on earth could the Nazis have known in advance to only kill Jews in only those camps that would later be captured by the Soviets, rather than the Americans or the British?

Perhaps the Nazis really did have the Spear of Destiny and could use it to tell the future? But even accepting this - as we now must - do we go on to suppose that the Ahnererbe was sharing occult information with officers in charge of the camps, even morale crushing information about their eventual loss of the war? [end quote]